The simplest way to keep Europe at bay

What surreal times these are, when the Prime Minister secretly encourages Tory rebels to crush his own plans to give prisoners the vote.

But then such are the antics our government has been driven to, since Labour signed away our national sovereignty to the unelected judges of the European Court of Human Rights.

It’s to comply with this interfering court, and to stop prisoners seeking damages, that David Cameron has drafted legislation to enfranchise those jailed for less than four years (though he says the very idea makes him ‘physically ill’).

Democratic right? Supporters of the bill argue that even those who have lost their liberty should be able to vote

Leave aside that 13 of our fellow signatories of the European human rights convention still deny all prisoners the vote, while many of those who allow it impose much tougher restrictions than our government proposes.

Mr Cameron’s calculation is that if MPs reject his plan, he’ll have a stronger hand to demand a rethink by the court.

The Mail warmly welcomes his desire for a confrontation to assert Parliament’s supremacy over the ECHR. And we trust he’ll be bold enough to seek many more, over such issues as Britain’s right to deport foreign terrorists.

But isn’t there a more straightforward way of stopping Strasbourg’s interference in our democracy — one which wouldn’t involve urging his backbenchers, with a nod and wink, to reject his legislation?

Shouldn’t he just honour his manifesto commitment to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a law spelling out that British rights, and the democratic authority of the UK Parliament, must always come first?

The big question: Did Tony Blair give a private promise to President Bush in 2002 that Britain would join the American assault on Iraq?

Censoring the truth

Did Tony Blair, or did he not, give a private promise to President Bush in 2002 that Britain would join the American assault on Iraq, regardless of Parliament, public opinion, the legal position or the ruling of the United Nations?

The question couldn’t be more crucial to Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the war, in which 179 British servicemen died.

For if the former prime minister did offer such an assurance, a year before the hostilities began, then every posture he struck between that day and the invasion can be seen as a cynical sham.

Yet, disgracefully, we’re forbidden to see the evidence that holds the answer.

In a move that makes a mockery of Sir John’s brief to expose the whole truth, Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell has rejected the inquiry’s request to publish memos exchanged between Mr Blair and Mr Bush or notes of their discussions.

And whose advice did Sir Gus seek before issuing his veto? Why, he consulted the man who appointed him to his post. Who happens to be... Tony Blair!

A Cabinet Office spokesman says: ‘There is an established convention whereby former ministers would normally be consulted before release of papers from their time in government.’

Fine, but how can it be right if this means the accused can censor the evidence?

Greedy Goldman Sachs

America's Goldman Sachs has always made great play of its charitable donations, hoping to soften its reputation as the ‘giant vampire squid’ of banking.

So what does it do, after a year in which earnings have fallen by 38 per cent?

Well, it has kept pay and bonus cuts to the barest minimum of 5 per cent (a move which still leaves a typical London-based partner with £1.3million).

Meanwhile, it has swung an axe to its much-vaunted ‘Goldman Sachs Gives’ programme, slashing its contributions to charity by a massive 36 per cent.

Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about City morality?